Lucian Freud Remembered. Images of (and links to) his Astounding Work.

above: Lucian Freud self-portrait (one of many), Reflection, 2005

British realist, figurative and portrait painter Lucian Freud, who was one of the greatest artists of our time, passed away at the age of 88 on July 20th.

Hirst Buys Bacon, Sothebys Makes Bread

Above: Tobias Meyer with Bacon's Self-portrait

There's been a lot of talk about art prices falling and auction houses suffering. However, just the other night, on November 14th, Sotheby's Evening of Contemporary Art Auction in New York set several records and hopes soaring.

Below is a reprint of an article written by Colin Gleadell for the UK's Daily Telegraph. I added the images for your entertainment and information.

Art sales: Damien Hirst's £16m for a slice of Bacon
Colin Gleadell on Damien Hirst's expensive purchase

Damien Hirst may have lost his title as the most expensive living artist at auction to Jeff Koons in New York last week, but he can still claim to be not only the richest artist in the world but also the one who spends the most on art.


Above: Francis Bacon, Self Portrait 1969, sold for $33,081,000 Sotheby’s New York, Nov. 14, 2007

Artist to artist: A 1969 self-portrait by Francis Bacon, which was bought by Damien Hirst bidding anonymously by telephone last Wednesday, he splashed out $33 million (£15.9 million) at Sotheby's on a 14" by 12" in self-portrait by Francis Bacon – easily a record for a small painting by Bacon, and surely one for an artist buying at auction.


Above: Damien Hirst's Platinum and diamond skull which received lots of press

In his excitement, the auctioneer Tobias Meyer, who knew Hirst was bidding, forgot the normal routine of noting down the buyer's registration number on the winning paddle. "I was too happy," he said. And why not?


Above: Tobias Meyer at Sotheby's

With that purchase, Hirst, who now owns four Bacons, joins an elite group of big spenders who last week allayed fears of a slump in contemporary art prices. The group includes the diamond dealer Laurence Graff and the hedge-fund manager Steve Cohen.


Above: Francis Bacon's Second Version of Study For A Bullfight #1, sold for $45.9 million

It is thought that Cohen bought the top lot of the week, Bacon's Study for Bullfight, for $46 million. And Graff spent nearly $30 million on two paintings by Warhol and one by Jean-Michel Basquiat.


Above: Basquiat, Untitled (Electric chair) 1981 - 1982, acrylic, gold spray paint and oilstick on canvas, Sold For 11,801,000 US$

He may have been in partnership with Larry Gagosian when the dealer bought a big Koons sculpture at the sales - the 8ft stainless-steel Blue Diamond, for $11.8 million.


Above: Koon's 8ft stainless steel Blue Diamond, sold for $11.8 million

On the surface it was a glittering display by the art world. More than 100 records were broken and $950 million was spent on contemporary art during the week.

This was itself a new record, close to the highest estimates for the sale set in the balmy early summer when credit crises were barely a glimmer in the eye of far-sighted Wall Street analysts.

Adding style to the occasion were the fashion designers Marc Jacobs, resplendent with blue hair and green scarf, and Valentino. Outbid as a buyer, Valentino successfully sold two paintings by Mark Rothko and a Hirst.

One of the Rothkos, which was sold for $21 million, cost $1.7 million at auction nine years ago. The Hirst made a record for a spot painting in 2003, selling for $438,000; Valentino sold it for $1.6 million last week.


Above: Jeff Koons' Hanging Heart, presently the world-record for art auction sales by a living artist; $23.6 million

The biggest mark-ups, though, came for Koons's $23.6 million Hanging Heart, for which the seller, the US property developer Adam Lindemann, had paid $4 million last year, and for Richard Prince's 2002 painting, Piney Woods Nurse, which was sold by the West coast collectors Nora and Norman Stone for $5.4 million.


Above: Richard Prince's Piney Woods Nurse, 2002, sold for $5.4 million

Bought by the London dealer Jay Jopling, the painting would have cost less than $100,000 when first shown four years ago.


Above: LUCIAN FREUD, Ib and her Husband (1992) ©The Artist, Oil on canvas, 16.8 x 14.7 cm Private Collection, sold for $19.36 million

Older generation artists in demand included Lucian Freud, whose portrait of his daughter, Ib and Her Husband, sold for $19.36 million, making him the most expensive living European artist at auction (in dollars), just ahead of Hirst; the American "Pop" artist Ed Ruscha, whose classic Burning Gas Station was sold by the collector Kent Logan for a record $6.98 million; and the junk-sculpture artist John Chamberlain, whose twisted wreck of car parts sold for a record $4.6 million.


Above: Ed Ruscha's Burning Gas Station, sold for $6.98 million

Among the rising stars attracting accelerating prices were the young Americans Mark Grotjahn and Jules de Balincourt, and the German Anselm Reyle, in all of whom Charles Saatchi has wisely invested.

However, there were some warning signs. At the main Christie's sale, 39 per cent of lots were sold at or below low estimates or not at all.

Nearly half the lots, carrying a combined low estimate of $173.5 million, had been guaranteed, and they realised just $176 million excluding auctioneer's commission. So profit levels must have been minimal.

US buying was also relatively low at around 50 per cent. In recent seasons this has been as high as 82 per cent for New York contemporary art sales, which are aimed mainly at the American market.

Sotheby's had made an even higher level of financial guarantees to sellers, regardless of the outcome of the sales, but, in contrast to last week's Impressionist sales, met it comfortably. The $316 million sale was Sotheby's largest of any kind, ever.

But there was sufficient evidence to predict that, come the next series of important Impressionist and contemporary art sales, in London in February, estimated prices and guarantee levels will be more conservative.

The bubble has not burst. But clouds are still gathering ominously.
__Colin Gleadell for the UK's Daily Telegraph




Click here to see Artnet's illustrated catalog of the Sotheby's Art Auction On November 14, 2007

Is LowBrow Art Just A Fad?

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, defines lowbrow art as follows:

Lowbrow, or lowbrow art, describes an underground visual art movement that arose in the Los Angeles, California, area in the late 1970s. Lowbrow is a widespread populist art movement with origins in the underground comix world, punk music, hot-rod street culture, and other California subcultures. It is also often known by the name pop surrealism.

The majority of lowbrow artworks are paintings; there are also toys (vinyl and plush), and sculptures.

The definition goes on to discuss the first artists to create what came to be known as 'lowbrow' art, magazines in the genre (the most famous being Juxtapoz, whose editor, Robert Williams, claims to have coined the name "lowbrow"), and 'alternative' galleries that carry these types of works.

Just so you know to whose work I am referring, some of the most well-known of these artists are: SHAG (Josh Agle), Mark Ryden, Marion Peck, Todd Schorr, Elizabeth McGrath, Tim Biskup, Gary Baseman, Gary Taxali, Anthony Ausgang, Camille Rose Garcia, Joe Sorren, Tara McPherson and Raymond Pettibon.

The Wikipedia definition goes on to historically compare the Lowbrow artists to the Dadaists.

This is where they lose me.

Now, I really enjoy looking at their works, even own a few of their books. I am entertained by their not so subtle interpretation of pop culture and their 'jabs' at historic art. I even enjoy seeing how 'creepy and offensive' some of them can get.

But since when are illustrations, comic books, tattoos and graffiti considered an art movement?

Art, yes. Movement? Nah.

Comparing Shag to Marcel Duchamp makes me cringe.


Okay, so the first time Marcel Duchamp penned R. Mutt on a urinal and called it a "Fountain", the art world was aghast at what he considered art. But he was the first (the first) to take an everyday object and ascribe some ironic meaning to it.

Jeff Koons, a well respected contemporary artist, merely did the same years later and his work has recently been rapidly declining in value. You may recall the white porcelain puppy planters or blue balloon dogs on plates that appear in online auctions weekly.



Even Nara and Murakami (two asian artists whose work treads the fine line between 'fine art' and lowbrow' art and are referred to as Neo-Pop Japanese art) have also declined in value.



Just take a look at the chart below. It is January 2007 data from artprice on auction and sales values in the art world.



So, as I was saying before I got off on an art tangent there, Did Shag have the same impact on society that Marcel Duchamp did?

To compare some fun retro cocktail party scenes or cute tiki illustrations and altoid tins to Man Ray's Photographs or Duchamp's urinal is not only a stretch, it's a disservice to the fine art world.

Nowhere in the Wikipedia definition do the words goth, creepy, alien, retro or macabre appear, yet you can ascribe most of these adjectives to the work in this genre.

Yes, I'd pay a lot of money for an original Francis Bacon or Lucien Freud painting (similarly described as macabre, goth, creepy...even disturbing) but probably not for an original Mark Ryden. And that's not because Mr. Bacon is dead and Mr. Ryden is alive and kicking, but because, to me, Francis Bacon is an artist and Mark Ryden is an illustrator. Albeit an excellent illustrator. The difference between their work however is not merely because of the style or medium in which they work, but it's because of their originality, conceptuality and the emotion evoked by their works. Bacon's work is open to interpretation, multiple manifestations of theory and conjecture, whereas what you see is what you get with Ryden's work. One can look at Bacon's paintings and see something different every time, not so much with Ryden's.



Please understand me, I believe the aforementioned lowbrow artists are talented. I think their works are amusing at the very least and valid expressions of culture and society at the very most. I'd happily buy Shag's cocktail party invites to mail out or wear a Nara T-shirt. I hope these artists make money. I believe they work hard and have great talent. But is it art or a fad?

Over 15 years ago, I hired Gary Baseman to do some illustrations for a piece for Dayrunner (the organizational agenda company) and he did an excellent job. I picked him after looking through what was then the bible for art directors to find illustrators (the blackbook). But would I have considered going to a show of his works? Probably not.

I do believe that those people who plopped down 2500$ for a Shag lithograph 5 years ago, couldn't sell it on ebay for even half that today.

To whom exactly does low-brow art appeal? It's not like you can equate lowbrow with low cost anymore. Many of these artists sell pieces of their work for thousands of dollars. But will the value of these pieces increase?

According to market indeces and art world trends, the answer is no. I am not privy to Juxtapoz Magazines' circulation numbers or Shag's personal income, but I bet it's not climbing steadily.

So, before you 'invest' in a piece of lowbrow art, I have two words for you: Patrick Nagel.